3 ms·

"Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http

by pc86 5y ago

"Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

okamiueru 5y ago
Thoughtful discussions should trump that, surely? Downvotes can be a reflection on many things, and wondering which or what, seems to be a fair thing to wonder about. Context is king. After all, the voting system exists to foster positive discussions. What do you suggest is the alternative correct phrasing then? Or are certain honest and curiosity based questions forbidden on HN?
sombremesa 5y ago
PG doesn’t want you to talk about failed YC startups. HN doesn’t want you to talk about failed HN systems. One of Amazon’s leadership principles used to be “vocally self critical” but now it has been removed. I don’t know why this trend exists but it’s disturbing. “Please don’t talk about the bad stuff here” is the mantra of modern times. Heck, HN doesn’t even let you downvote or comment on YC job posts no matter how bad the company may be to work for. Then we come on here and talk about fake reviews and inflated ratings as if we aren’t part of the problem.
- busterarm 5y ago
  HN's unwillingness to engage in meta conversation combined with somewhat vague rules and equally vague enforcement (sorry dang, although I do think you and the team do a good job in general) has really driven me away from participating as much as I used to. Many conversations worth having aren't had and many conversations had aren't worth having. The environment has been very polarized along certain lines and unfortunately I think trends towards reinforcing very myopic worldviews held by people with very skewed perspectives of the world at large. Just for some examples, crybullying runs rampant on this platform lately and I increasingly do not want to associate with a community that is used to coordinate and amplify personal attacks. Then there's the frequent contempt for the poor that tends to come up any time someone mentions rent regulations and/or zoning.
- kodah 5y ago
  > PG doesn’t want you to talk about failed YC startups. We do though. I'm pretty sure the saga of Gab played out on this website in plaintext. Maybe that's not your definition of "failed" though? > HN doesn’t want you to talk about failed HN systems. Like that infamous no politics policy of 2016? That seems to get brought up every few months. It's worth mentioning changes to HN are very slow, and by design. Some changes are too fundamental to HN, which dang refers to as, "fucking with the firmware". > One of Amazon’s leadership principles used to be “vocally self critical” but now it has been removed. I'm honestly not sure how this is related. Anyway, I do think a lot of HN and ycombinator discussions happen but you end up having to be at the right place at the right time. By browsing other users comments I've discovered there's a lot of interesting threads I miss, which I was previously unaware of. Sometimes they don't spend that much time on the front page, or live on for days in /active.
  - sombremesa 5y ago
    > I'm pretty sure the saga of Gab played out on this website in plaintext. The Gab website is still active and the company is alive...that does not count as failed in my book. I did a search for over 170 failed startups from YC (this is still a small sampling) and without exception, any post that talks about their failure (there's maybe 3...) invariably gets buried immediately and ends up dying with no comments. [0][1][2] Ever heard the saying twice is a coincidence and thrice is a pattern? Would love to see a counterexample with an actual shuttered startup. > Anyway, I do think a lot of HN and ycombinator discussions happen but you end up having to be at the right place at the right time. By browsing other users comments I've discovered there's a lot of interesting threads I miss, which I was previously unaware of. Sometimes they don't spend that much time on the front page, or live on for days in /active. That's a fair point. I can see how HN-specific threads would be more susceptible to getting caught in the anti-flamewar filter and dropping down in the rankings. However, I'm not optimistic any change will be made here. > I'm honestly not sure how this is related. It's related in the sense that there appears to be a trend against the idea of sincere self-assessment, and more disturbingly, a trend towards actively suppressing dissenting voices by any means necessary. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15959095 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15959095 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15316698 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15316698 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21030823 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21030823
mumblemumble 5y ago
I actually disagree with the "It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." I've seen plenty of cases where the interesting discussion was in response to a "why the downvotes?" question. It seems like it's a fairly safe bet that at least sometimes the interesting discussion was actually sparked by the "why the downvotes?" comment, and, without it, people might not have been motivated to actually articulate their thoughts. I think the complaint that people are often trying to raise is that, while downvotes for comments that are actually hostile seem like a reasonable mechanism for keeping up the quality of conversation, the semi-official sanctioning of using the downvote button to register your displeasure with an opinion you don't agree with, without having to actually share your own opinion, encourages at least some thoughtful discussion to be replaced with knee-jerk reactions. Some folks who've been on HN since early on see it as the driver of a sort of "endless summer" effect, and are perhaps nostalgic for a time when the social conventions around this button were a bit different, and served to foster more civil, thoughtful discussion.
- loceng 5y ago
  Upvotes-only system will drive quality contents towards the top and give them more exposure. Downvotes should just be gone, it rewards laziness and I suppose keeps lazier people who just enjoy/need a quick hit of dopamine to feel like they've contributed somehow - so probably keeps more people addicted and coming back, people who otherwise would get bored and not come back as much; it makes me wonder what quality of comments people who downvote also make, I wonder if the less downvotes people do the higher quality comments (need to define what attributes would be part of quality)? Dang/HN doesn't seem to be open to experimenting either.
  - mumblemumble 5y ago
    I've sometimes wondered a similar thing. Maybe keep the votes (even the down), but eliminate most the ways they're displayed aside from how they influence sorting. I don't see any problem with having a community moderation system. It's the aspects of gamification and public shaming that are troublesome. Do I really benefit from seeing my karma at the top right of every page? Does the community at large benefit from me seeing it? I'd be interested if sorting could be done better, too. The way that posts accumulate votes according to zipf's law together with a feedback effect where people mostly only read (and vote on) the top few comments means that there's a strong bias toward the discussion being dominated by the earliest posts. Ones that have had a chance to benefit from and be informed by points raised in earlier comments are at a bit of a disadvantage in the karmic rat race.

by pc86 5y ago

okamiueru 5y ago

Thoughtful discussions should trump that, surely? Downvotes can be a reflection on many things, and wondering which or what, seems to be a fair thing to wonder about. Context is king. After all, the voting system exists to foster positive discussions. What do you suggest is the alternative correct phrasing then? Or are certain honest and curiosity based questions forbidden on HN?

sombremesa 5y ago

PG doesn’t want you to talk about failed YC startups. HN doesn’t want you to talk about failed HN systems. One of Amazon’s leadership principles used to be “vocally self critical” but now it has been removed. I don’t know why this trend exists but it’s disturbing. “Please don’t talk about the bad stuff here” is the mantra of modern times. Heck, HN doesn’t even let you downvote or comment on YC job posts no matter how bad the company may be to work for. Then we come on here and talk about fake reviews and inflated ratings as if we aren’t part of the problem.

busterarm 5y ago
HN's unwillingness to engage in meta conversation combined with somewhat vague rules and equally vague enforcement (sorry dang, although I do think you and the team do a good job in general) has really driven me away from participating as much as I used to. Many conversations worth having aren't had and many conversations had aren't worth having. The environment has been very polarized along certain lines and unfortunately I think trends towards reinforcing very myopic worldviews held by people with very skewed perspectives of the world at large. Just for some examples, crybullying runs rampant on this platform lately and I increasingly do not want to associate with a community that is used to coordinate and amplify personal attacks. Then there's the frequent contempt for the poor that tends to come up any time someone mentions rent regulations and/or zoning.
kodah 5y ago
> PG doesn’t want you to talk about failed YC startups. We do though. I'm pretty sure the saga of Gab played out on this website in plaintext. Maybe that's not your definition of "failed" though? > HN doesn’t want you to talk about failed HN systems. Like that infamous no politics policy of 2016? That seems to get brought up every few months. It's worth mentioning changes to HN are very slow, and by design. Some changes are too fundamental to HN, which dang refers to as, "fucking with the firmware". > One of Amazon’s leadership principles used to be “vocally self critical” but now it has been removed. I'm honestly not sure how this is related. Anyway, I do think a lot of HN and ycombinator discussions happen but you end up having to be at the right place at the right time. By browsing other users comments I've discovered there's a lot of interesting threads I miss, which I was previously unaware of. Sometimes they don't spend that much time on the front page, or live on for days in /active.
- sombremesa 5y ago
  > I'm pretty sure the saga of Gab played out on this website in plaintext. The Gab website is still active and the company is alive...that does not count as failed in my book. I did a search for over 170 failed startups from YC (this is still a small sampling) and without exception, any post that talks about their failure (there's maybe 3...) invariably gets buried immediately and ends up dying with no comments. [0][1][2] Ever heard the saying twice is a coincidence and thrice is a pattern? Would love to see a counterexample with an actual shuttered startup. > Anyway, I do think a lot of HN and ycombinator discussions happen but you end up having to be at the right place at the right time. By browsing other users comments I've discovered there's a lot of interesting threads I miss, which I was previously unaware of. Sometimes they don't spend that much time on the front page, or live on for days in /active. That's a fair point. I can see how HN-specific threads would be more susceptible to getting caught in the anti-flamewar filter and dropping down in the rankings. However, I'm not optimistic any change will be made here. > I'm honestly not sure how this is related. It's related in the sense that there appears to be a trend against the idea of sincere self-assessment, and more disturbingly, a trend towards actively suppressing dissenting voices by any means necessary. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15959095 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15959095 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15316698 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15316698 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21030823 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21030823

mumblemumble 5y ago

I actually disagree with the "It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." I've seen plenty of cases where the interesting discussion was in response to a "why the downvotes?" question. It seems like it's a fairly safe bet that at least sometimes the interesting discussion was actually sparked by the "why the downvotes?" comment, and, without it, people might not have been motivated to actually articulate their thoughts. I think the complaint that people are often trying to raise is that, while downvotes for comments that are actually hostile seem like a reasonable mechanism for keeping up the quality of conversation, the semi-official sanctioning of using the downvote button to register your displeasure with an opinion you don't agree with, without having to actually share your own opinion, encourages at least some thoughtful discussion to be replaced with knee-jerk reactions. Some folks who've been on HN since early on see it as the driver of a sort of "endless summer" effect, and are perhaps nostalgic for a time when the social conventions around this button were a bit different, and served to foster more civil, thoughtful discussion.

loceng 5y ago
Upvotes-only system will drive quality contents towards the top and give them more exposure. Downvotes should just be gone, it rewards laziness and I suppose keeps lazier people who just enjoy/need a quick hit of dopamine to feel like they've contributed somehow - so probably keeps more people addicted and coming back, people who otherwise would get bored and not come back as much; it makes me wonder what quality of comments people who downvote also make, I wonder if the less downvotes people do the higher quality comments (need to define what attributes would be part of quality)? Dang/HN doesn't seem to be open to experimenting either.
- mumblemumble 5y ago
  I've sometimes wondered a similar thing. Maybe keep the votes (even the down), but eliminate most the ways they're displayed aside from how they influence sorting. I don't see any problem with having a community moderation system. It's the aspects of gamification and public shaming that are troublesome. Do I really benefit from seeing my karma at the top right of every page? Does the community at large benefit from me seeing it? I'd be interested if sorting could be done better, too. The way that posts accumulate votes according to zipf's law together with a feedback effect where people mostly only read (and vote on) the top few comments means that there's a strong bias toward the discussion being dominated by the earliest posts. Ones that have had a chance to benefit from and be informed by points raised in earlier comments are at a bit of a disadvantage in the karmic rat race.